What argument? I don't see an argument, I just see [deleted]. If you mean this... This is why I think strict materialism on consciousness is misguided. Pe

What argument? I don't see an argument, I just see [deleted]. If you mean this... This is why I think strict materialism on consciousness is misguided. People like to think "weve cracked everything scientifically, from quantum physics to neuroscience, so even if we don't have a good explanation for consciousness now, we'll get there." Except the reality is macroscopic neuroscientific findings are incredibly coarse and with many caveats and uncertainties, statements more like "this area of the brain is associated with X" than "this area of the brain causes X." It's not just optimistic - its qualitatively unjustified to think that neuroscience (in its current form, at least) is inevitably capable of cracking consciousness. Many STEM people hate this because they want to axiomatically believe materialist science can reach everything, despite the evidence to the contrary. shrug ... that wasn't an argument, it was a loosely formed set of vague and unsubstantiated claims. The fact that you immediately deleted it and started insulting anyone who responded to you kind of proves my point. I'm sorry I wasted my time on you, won't happen again.